1. Field of the Invention
The invention advances that state of the art of removing floor coverings such as carpets that are glued or fastened to a floor surface.
2. Description of Related Art
Floor coverings have been in use for the duration of recorded history. In more recent centuries, floor coverings have become more durable, and more suitable for use in residential and commercial high-traffic pedestrian areas. Those skilled and knowledgeable in the related fields of technology have long understood that such high-traffic environments establish unfavorable wear conditions for carpeting and other types of floor coverings. Many problems have resulted and include accelerated wear and deterioration. This type of damage often may occur as a result of unwanted shifting of the floor covering during use due to the movement of individuals, furniture and equipment.
Attempts to reduce wear due to undesired shifting led to efforts to fasten the floor covering to the sub-floor. Fastening methods have included adhesive materials and mechanical fasteners. In more recent decades, advances in the state of the art of such fastening techniques have borne improved glues and improved nails, tacks, staples, and combinations thereof. These fastening methods have matured and now ensure very strong and permanent interfaces that join the floor covering to the subjacent floor surface.
Despite improvement in the wear and damage that results from better fastening methods, floor coverings still see wear and unavoidable deterioration over time, which necessitates removal and replacement. In some instances, the worn covering is covered over with a new floor covering, but such overlayments are only possible a limited number of times. The layered coverings create instability due to continued deterioration of the underlying and new covered materials, as well as the eventual disintegration of the adhesives typically applied in the interstices between the layers.
Eventually, all floor covering layers must be removed to expose the native sub-flooring or underlayment, so that a new floor covering can be installed. The capability to remove a floor covering that is secured to the sub-floor using newer fastening techniques has become more difficult with each advance in fastening technology. In turn, the ever increasing difficulty has led to the need for more capable removal methods and technologies.
In the last several decades, many attempts to improve the state of the art in removal methods have resulted in issuance of patents in the United States that illustrate some of the purported advances. Of the many improved techniques, devices, and equipment brought to bear on the problems associated with removing securely-fastened floor coverings, those endeavoring in the related arts have continually attempted to improve the capabilities of many types of automated machines and devices.
In one previous improvement related to removal of linoleum floor coverings, U.S. Pat. No. 2,655,976 to Lovin, incorporates a box-like frame that includes a heating device to heat the linoleum prior to removal. After heating, it is spooled onto a roll driven by the wheels mounted to the bottom of the box frame. The Lovin device requires that the linoleum is previously cut into strips and then heated before it can be removed from the floor surface.
Another previous attempt is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,948,451 to Foltz and is limited to an automatic carpet stripping apparatus that includes a self-propelled carpet machine with a frame mounted pair of motorized rollers that receive a loose end of a carpet and then pull the carpet up off of its supporting surface. The Foltz device also describes a pair of knives arranged to cut the carpet into strips during removal.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,844 to Hanson describes another previous device that is similar to the Foltz machine. However, the Hanson machine incorporates in place of the rollers a compression gear with teeth that is driven by an opposing and confronting, toothed drive gear. The carpet is cut into strips by cutter assemblies having blades mounted on opposite sided skid plates such that the carpet is cut and pulled between the complex gear arrangement to be lifted and removed from the floor surface.
Another purported improvement is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,004,426 to Johnson, which employs a driven spool member that captures an edge of the carpet and attempts to wind it over the spool to tear the carpet from the floor. For removing a carpet that has been pre-cut into strips, U.S. Pat. No. 6,371,401 to Ketterer describes a wheel frame that incorporates a rotating casing that must be fastened to an end of a carpet strip. The strip is then pulled from the floor surface and spooled onto the casing as the device rolls across the floor. The direction of the device is then reversed to unspool the carpet for subsequent removal from the casing.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,595,261 B2 to Fitterer describes an apparatus to remove a floor covering by separating the covering from the floor with a knife blade and then threading the floor covering through a series of three rollers to pull it away from and remove it from the floor surface.
The various prior art devices and machines that purport to reduce the amount of manual labor needed to remove a floor covering, such as a carpet from the floor surface, fail to overcome a number of disadvantages that persist for users who are confronted with removing floor coverings. In one respect, most prior art machines remain unwieldy and of such a large size that prevents their use in narrow hallways and other confined spaces. Additionally, the larger profile machines can be expensive as a result of the many moving parts and complex components that are needed to manufacture and operate the assemblies. Further, the more complex machines are more expensive to buy and maintain as a result of such complexity. Other shortcomings that persist include an undesirable amount of noise and dust that results from the overly large size and complexity of many of such devices. As previous attempts have increased the size and complexity of the floor covering removal machines, other attempts have endeavored to reduce the size and weight. Even so, the devices offered by Ketterer and Johnson, while directed to reducing complexity and weight, have introduced other disadvantages such as less power and pulling forces.
These prior attempts describe different devices that each seek to improve the state of the art, however, in the field of removing floor coverings, such as carpeting and the like, many challenges remain despite the previous innovations. The smaller machines that have been devised remain difficult and slow to use for removal of floor coverings that are very securely fastened to a floor surface. Larger more powerful machines remain bulky, unwieldy and too large to maneuver into confined areas, and too heavy to enable easy transport to and from locations. Such larger machines are also more complex and require more frequent servicing of the many moving parts.
Further, most of such larger machines create a substantial amount of dust during the removal operation, and remain too noisy for use in many residential, commercial, and industrial settings and applications. As a result, the use of such larger machines is limited to off hours when increased dust and high volume sound will not interfere with other regular activities on the premises.
Additionally, many, if not all such machines, including those described above, inject new problems to the difficulties in the lifting and removing operations. Mainly, the prior, more powerful machines most often operate at speeds and with forces that tend to rend the floor covering during removal, which occurs often and especially on start-up of the machine. Such rending results in more dust and produces shredded material and debris that fouls the machines, which requires frequent stops and starts to clean and reset the machine. Attempts to lessen the rending of the floor covering during removal have resulted in even more complex mechanisms or inadequate pulling and lifting capabilities.
What has been needed and heretofore unavailable is a floor covering removal machine that is small in overall size and profile and that minimizes weight for easy transportation to and from job sites. More preferably, an improved machine is needed that is quiet to operate, that minimizes unnecessary rending and dust and debris, and which has a minimum of moving parts to lessen complexity, reduce maintenance costs, and which further increases the ease of operation. Even more preferably, it is desirable to have a machine that offers these benefits while enabling any desired speed and power setting so that floor coverings can be removed quickly and with a minimum inconvenience to the operator.